gdelt_tv_showchart

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It mentions 'coverage share' and 'result percentage' but doesn't state whether the output is a chart, data array, or something else. It also doesn't mention any rate limits, time window constraints beyond what's in the schema, or how the query relates to the many search parameters.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences with no wasted words and effectively front-loads the core purpose. It's admirably concise, though it sacrifices some useful detail about output format or query mapping.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with 15 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It doesn't explain what the return value looks like (chart image? data table?), how the 'query' maps to the various search array parameters, or that `station` is mandatory. The rich schema helps but the description leaves too much for the agent to infer.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all 15 parameters are already well-documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond saying 'for a query,' which is vague given the tool supports multiple search dimensions (caption, transcript, concept, onscreen_text, etc.). Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema handles parameter documentation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('top shows by result percentage for a query'), which clearly identifies the tool's function. However, it doesn't differentiate from closely related sibling tools like gdelt_tv_stationchart or gdelt_tv_timeline, and the phrase 'result percentage' is somewhat ambiguous without more context.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies this tool is for finding top US TV shows by coverage share, which gives some usage context. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and the required `station` parameter is only visible in the schema, not the description.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.